In Congress, four factions form on Syria

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio listens as President Barack Obama speaks to media. AP PHOTO

By Amber Phillips

Digital First Media

It's unclear if Congress will authorize President Obama to use force in Syria.

Although he's received several high-profile endorsements from Republicans and Democrats, Obama's request for congressional approval to use force has split members of Congress into four main factions.

Here's a closer look at where they fall:

The Hawks

What they argue: Hawks believe the U.S. should conduct limited military strikes and go even further than the administration has advocated by destroying the Syrian government's launching capabilities while supporting rebels who are trying to topple its dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

Who's arguing it: High-profile Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the U.S.' reputation will diminish if it stays out of Syria. Sen. Carl Levin, a powerful Michigan Democrat, said he thinks the U.S. should provide anti-tank weapons to Syrian rebels.

What they're saying: If Congress votes down the resolution authorizing Obama to use force, McCain said it would be "catastrophic because it would undermine the credibility of the United States and the president of the United States."

The Line-Drawers

What they argue: Line-drawers believe Assad's use of chemical weapons violated international wartime rules, and he should be punished to set precedent.

Advertisement

Who's arguing it: This diverse group of lawmakers encompasses Obama's traditional Democratic supporters such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as well as his Republican adversaries, including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

What they're saying: "The use of these (chemical) weapons has to be responded to and only the United States has the capability and capacity to stop Assad and warn others around the world that this type of behavior will not be tolerated," Boehner said Tuesday.

The Doves

What they argue: Legislators oppose intervening in Syria for a variety of reasons, including doubts the U.S. has proof Assad used chemical weapons, worries we will be dragged into another protracted Middle East conflict and concerns that military strikes will make no difference or exacerbate the civil war in Syria.

Who's arguing it: Many liberals, libertarians and tea-party Republicans fall under this category. They include isolationist-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and liberal House Democrats from across the country. Notably, no Senate Democrats publicly oppose military action.

What they said: "The United States can no longer afford to be the world's police. ... Direct U.S. military involvement at this time is one of the worst of many bad options," Rep. Kurt Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon, wrote in a letter to Obama.

The Undecideds

What they argue: Many undecided members of Congress are concerned Obama will have too much power to do what he wants in Syria. Others believe Syria isn't strategically important to the United States. And still others want to please a constituency that polls show oppose missile strikes in Syria.

Who's arguing it: This category is the largest, with 60 senators and 90-some representatives from both sides of the aisle not sure if they will vote to authorize military force.

What they're saying: "I continue to believe that the Assad regime must be held accountable by the international community for the use of chemical weapons," said New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat. "Authorizing the use of force, however, is not a decision I take lightly."

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sentinel and Enterprise. So keep it civil.